Wikipedia's language nerds hit the front page

This isn't the first time The Beatles (or is it "the" Beatles?) has shown up in the press: a 2009 Telegraph story named it as the number-two read article on Wikipedia, behind the eponymous (and often accidentally reached) wiki.

As of this writing, there were 45 comments on the Wall Street Journal story, many of them debating the capitalization point itself, while others raised the question of whether consensus on Wikipedia was a viable decision-making model. The most recommended comment opined "They argue so loud because the stakes are so low...."

The results of the RfC will be announced next week.

Since the last installment of In the media, a few stories reported on the controversy surrounding GibraltarpediA (see the Signpost's 24 September detailed report and the followup on 1 October). The Telegraph ran a story on 2 October, following the publication of two more CNET stories by Violet Blue, who first wrote about the story.

• Does writing Wikipedia make you a better scholar?: Martin Poulter asks this question (and answers it affirmatively) for a blog post.
• Metro on editing: The Metro, a widely-read free commuter paper in the UK, interviewed David Gerard for a story on "the role of a Wikipedian," focused on the day-to-day activity of editing.
• DMCA debacle: a number of tech press outlets, including Mashable, Torrentfreak, Gizmodo, Infoworld, and the BBC (which was also served with a takedown notice) covered the issue of Microsoft's mistakenly serving DMCA notices to a number of sites, including Wikipedia (covered in last week's News and notes.)
• Finweek interview: Finweek, a South African business magazine, interviewed Jimmy Wales.
• Haymarket heard: An October 3rd story on Morning Edition (an NPR news show) revisited the issue of the Haymarket riots with Professor Timothy Messer-Kruse; Steven Walling was interviewed.
• Torah scholarship: A piece in the Jewish Voice outlined the work of Bill Dauster, who has contributed significant Torah scholarship as well as in-depth U.S. Congressional knowledge to Wikipedia.
• Armenian conference: The Armenian Reporter described the Yerevan WikiConference, held in Yerevan on September 8–9.

In this issue

15 October 2012 (all comments)

Op-ed

In the media

Featured content

News and notes

Technology report

WikiProject report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Full credit: Tony1 added the headline. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 20:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The poll embedded in the article online is quite telling [1]-- 'The' is beating 'the' by a 3:1 margin. Comments are also leaning that way too. Hot Stop (Edits) 21:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not really telling at all. They are asking a different question Should Wikipedia's entry be for "The" Beatles or "the" Beatles? There is no doubt or discussion taking place over the entry, only use in running text. Rich Farmbrough, 00:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  

anyone with half a brain knows what that question means — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.201.156 (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure I'm happy with the word "nerds". I think most people that have been on Wikipedia for some time will have found themselves in a somewhat lengthy debate over a seemingly minor issue. I know some people embrace their nerdiness, but I wonder whether many Wikipedians will feel rather insulted by the word. I do. A bit. --bodnotbod (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Neither do I like being incorporated into the nerd category. I'm decidedly a linguist, but absolutely not a nerd. Fylbecatulous talk 15:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I have over time come to the conclusion that it's only the context that matters. The word "nerd" usually indicates a self-selected specialty or a degree of obsessiveness: word those as "expertise" and "passion" and suddenly the connotations are positive. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 21:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It must have been a very slow news day on Wall Street. One gets used to Wikipedians obsessing over little things like this; but the WSJ, at least under its former ownership, was usually able to find weightier matters to fill its front page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]